Have you always been alive?

PaleRider · #**231** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong

Yea Pale, didn't ya know that they are doing the baby a favor, you know...just in case.....

You know, since that is such a large part of their argument, one can't help but wonder why they don't advocate going around and killing people who we know beyond a doubt are having bad lives. Their logic demands that we hunt down and kill everyone who is unloved, abused, has immature parents, is poor, or is simply unhappy because it is the kind thing to do.

It is such a blatant hypocricy on thier part. One wonders how they are unable to see it.

Lexi · #**232** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Because we have a right to live our lives without prejudice as to what sort of lives they are or might be. Neither, you, nor anyone else has the right to decide that this one or that one MIGHT not have a happy life and simply kill them.

Now I know what your problem is Pale, you have a twisted mind. What abortion clinic are you planning on blowing up now?

PaleRider · #**233** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexi

Now I know what your problem is Pale, you have a twisted mind. What abortion clinic are you planning on blowing up now?

No actual rebuttal? Just a carsonesque remark. That is what you have been reduced to? You must be so proud.

Rooster · #**234** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The child dies whether the abortion is legal or not. "Since most people will obey the law, exactly what logic makes you think that more children will be killed? Even if every woman who would like an abortion disregards the law and has one anyway, there will be no more children killed than before abortion was outlawed."

I have answered that so many times...sent data, done everything but you just refuse to accept anything contrary to your virews...factual or whatever.

"If roe is overturned on the basis of established personhood of the unborn, any drug, or device that has an abortificient effect will naturally be banned as it would be a violation of the child's 14th amendment rights."

Fat chance that will ever happen. Women control more votes than men. Do you think that would ever fly?

"Pharmachology. And medical devices mostly originate from medicine."

Pills are devices?

"Nope. I don't play that game. I donate my time and money towards the legal fight. And you were the one that brought my job into the discussion so stop crying because I told you what I do.

"

Yes, but you are the one that mentioned how successful you are, braggart. Do you see any tears...oh successful one? Is the page wet?

You did not reply what a "no abortion" world would be like...a world already brimming with people, that you want to stuff with more of the same. How about starvation? How about the need for territorial expansion...or war to accomodate them?

Who is going to support the children of those unwed mothers, the law abiding ones? We are. Only fools think like that, fanatical fools.

Lexi · #**235** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

No actual rebuttal? Just a carsonesque remark. That is what you have been reduced to? You must be so proud.

Oh yes, I am so proud. Don't you wish you could be proud of yourself too?

'His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.' - Mae West

Suburbanite · #**236** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I have been involved in a discussion with a few ladies on another thread and it seems that their entire position on abortion rests, and depends upon the idea that unborns aren't alive.

This leads me to wonder how many folks there are who actually believe that there is a third state in which we can exist that is neither alive nor dead. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion among scientists, even those who are pro choice as to whether unborns are alive at any stage of development. There is a great deal of discussion as to whether it is OK to kill them, or use them in scientific experiments, but none with regard to whether or not they are alive.

In this other conversation, whenever one of these ladies suggested that unborns aren't alive, I asked for some sort of credible science to support their claim that they weren't alive or that there was some third state that we can exist in that is neither alive nor dead, but they never provided anything that resembled credible support for their position.

"What you can't seem to get in that nog of yours is that all that scientific mumbo jumbo you have doesn't mean shit. "

"Your "scientific facts" are worthless in the REAL WORLD...."

"a fetus is not alive. and I stand by everything I've said"

"fetuses aren't alive. deal with it."

"a fetus is pre-life. its not alive. "

"When life begins? Nope! You wont find credible scientific thought on it. It's not a medical/scientific question. "

"And, major medical schools, not the small ones affiliated with religious organizations, did not deal with issues of when life begins. At least up to 1971, they didn't."

"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk."

My question isn't whether it is OK to terminate a pregnancy, or whether it is OK to use embryos in scientific experiments. My question is whether or not you believe that we are alive from the time we are concieved; and if you don't believe that we are alive at any stage of our lives, what exactly, do you base this belief on?

I think anyone who thinks the core of the argument is if the fetus is alive understands nothing. Firstly, "alive" is a state of being defined by humans. It isn't only a scientifically identifiable state of matter. It is also an opinion, a choice of definition. You have to understand how stupid the argument is:

Prolifers claim abortion is murder. Therefor, pro-choicers stupid fucks that they are) had to go and claim no no its not really alive to begin with. But this is what people are fighting about: morals. It is moral, that is to say does it match up with "objective" criteria to be considered "good" or "bad". Well, frankly, using morality in life is for religious tools, and pro-choices should resist leaving the argument in the context of morality. Of course pro-lifers will sound better in their own context. How about being pragmatic in making up your mind....
Don't think: is this right or wrong? Cause questions like that are for douche bags who dont get life. Ask instead "is this better or worse for me and society." Invariably, being pro-choice suddenly makes a whole new WORLD of sense! Pro-choicers aren't saying the fetus is already dead, they don't care, because they know morality comes after the need to survive and adjust to the environment. It used to be, in olden days, if you didnt want your kid you just berthed it and then threw it away. This is the future baby, now we'll throw it away before you even have to spread your pussy.

PaleRider · #**237** (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

I think anyone who thinks the core of the argument is if the fetus is alive understands nothing. Firstly, "alive" is a state of being defined by humans. It isn't only a scientifically identifiable state of matter. It is also an opinion, a choice of definition. You have to understand how stupid the argument is:

Right. Try killing someone and explaining to the judge that you didn't do it because he really wasn't alive and that alive is a state of being defined by humans and in your opinion, he wasn't alive so you couldn't have killed him.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

Prolifers claim abortion is murder. Therefor, pro-choicers stupid fucks that they are) had to go and claim no no its not really alive to begin with. But this is what people are fighting about: morals. It is moral, that is to say does it match up with "objective" criteria to be considered "good" or "bad". Well, frankly, using morality in life is for religious tools, and pro-choices should resist leaving the argument in the context of morality. Of course pro-lifers will sound better in their own context. How about being pragmatic in making up your mind....

I haven't made a moral case out of this. I haven't said that it is good or bad. I have said that unless you can prove that unborns are something other than living human beings from the time we are concieved then any argument for killing them must apply to all human beings as you have not proved a difference beyond age and level of maturity.

Suburbanite · #**238** (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 01:21 AM

dude... im trying to be logical, it would help if you pulled it together a little bit here!

talk about speculation. No, my definition of life would not allow for me to define an already living person like myself to be considered dead. But, it is not the same, applying that argument to something that once could communicate with you that its dead. If the Fetus jumped up and said something, or fuck, if it even made a noise, a sound of discomfort, you'd have a point. But as of now, the issue COULD go either way, and the COULD is based ENTIRELY on your own opinion.

look up the word non-sequitur before you reply, your last attempt to dismantle my argument was the most pathetic display of human thought I've ever played witness to.

PaleRider · #**239** (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

dude... im trying to be logical, it would help if you pulled it together a little bit here!

I have no doubt that you are trying. It is clear, however, that you are failing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

talk about speculation. No, my definition of life would not allow for me to define an already living person like myself to be considered dead.

Your logic fails, right here at the most basic level. You assume that your definition means anyting at all. You state that your definition couldn't allow you to define a post natal as dead. That leaves open the possibility that someone else could and since, in a court of law, their definition of life would not be a valid defense, neither would yours. Individual's personal definitions are meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

But, it is not the same, applying that argument to something that once could communicate with you that its dead. If the Fetus jumped up and said something, or fuck, if it even made a noise, a sound of discomfort, you'd have a point. But as of now, the issue COULD go either way, and the COULD is based ENTIRELY on your own opinion.

Sorry. Once again, your logic fails. I am not operating from my opinion. I have provided ample credible science that states explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved to prove the point. My opinion is irrelavent in the face of scientific fact. So is yours.

Now, if you can offer up some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being, you have an argument. If you can't, then you have nothing and any argument that you make for killing unborns must logically apply to every other human being as you will have failed to prove any difference other than age and level of maturity.

Lexi · #**240** (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

I have no doubt that you are trying. It is clear, however, that you are failing.

Your logic fails, right here at the most basic level. You assume that your definition means anyting at all. You state that your definition couldn't allow you to define a post natal as dead. That leaves open the possibility that someone else could and since, in a court of law, their definition of life would not be a valid defense, neither would yours. Individual's personal definitions are meaningless.

Sorry. Once again, your logic fails. I am not operating from my opinion. I have provided ample credible science that states explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved to prove the point. My opinion is irrelavent in the face of scientific fact. So is yours.

Now, if you can offer up some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything other than a human being, you have an argument. If you can't, then you have nothing and any argument that you make for killing unborns must logically apply to every other human being as you will have failed to prove any difference other than age and level of maturity.

Like I told you on another thread Pale, your credible science doesn't apply to everyone.